PDA

View Full Version : Googles Sue Google (registration required)


MacBytes
Jul 8, 2004, 04:52 PM
Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Googles Sue Google (registration required) (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040708175232)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

digii3
Jul 8, 2004, 06:41 PM
Isn't "google" or pural form of google a number?

granex
Jul 8, 2004, 07:12 PM
Isn't "google" or pural form of google a number?

Actually, I believe that the number is a googleplex, so google is different enough to be unique in this context.

Nermal
Jul 8, 2004, 07:23 PM
It's actually a googolplex.

mainstreetmark
Jul 8, 2004, 07:30 PM
yeah, a googol is 1 with a hundred zeros. A googol plex is 1 with a googol zeros.

A googol plex is a number so large, that if you were to write it down as small as you could, it would take more pieces of paper than would fit in the known universe.

themadchemist
Jul 8, 2004, 10:48 PM
yeah, a googol is 1 with a hundred zeros. A googol plex is 1 with a googol zeros.

A googol plex is a number so large, that if you were to write it down as small as you could, it would take more pieces of paper than would fit in the known universe.

Well then I better wait 'til we know more of the universe. :D

dragula53
Jul 8, 2004, 11:36 PM
nevermind

Chip NoVaMac
Jul 9, 2004, 06:31 AM
Saw a report on TV about this. My question is why did Googles wait so long to fight for their trademark?

MetallicPenguin
Jul 9, 2004, 07:39 AM
can someone post the story? I don't want to register.

shamino
Jul 9, 2004, 11:18 AM
can someone post the story? I don't want to register.
I haven't found another source for the Washington Post article, but here's a ZDNet article (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5259688.html) talking about the same lawsuit. And another article (http://www.searchengineguide.com/laycock/001665.html) I found on the subject.

After reading them (I, too, don't want to give the Washington Post my e-mail address in order to read their articles), I'm convinced that Googles is right and Google is wrong.

Googles registered their trademark first. While there may be some legitimate areas for negotiation and compromise WRT e-mail and book sales, Google is flat out wrong if they are want to try and get their brand on children's products. That is clearly in the domain of the Googles.com people.

shamino
Jul 9, 2004, 11:19 AM
Saw a report on TV about this. My question is why did Googles wait so long to fight for their trademark?
Trademarks are registered for specific purposes. It was only recently that Google (the search company) decided to move into e-mail, book selling and children's toys - three areas where Googles got there first.

shamino
Jul 9, 2004, 11:23 AM
yeah, a googol is 1 with a hundred zeros. A googol plex is 1 with a googol zeros.

A googol plex is a number so large, that if you were to write it down as small as you could, it would take more pieces of paper than would fit in the known universe.
The way I heard it described (and maybe it's not correct) is that there are less than a googol of particles in the universe. Therefore it is impossible to actually write out the full decimal representation of a googolplex - even if you use the smallest elementary particle to represent a zero, there aren't enough of them.

Amusingly, "googolplex" is also the name of the Springfield movie theater in The Simpsons. Since seeing that usage on TV, I've also adopted it to refer to any really huge movie theater.

mainstreetmark
Jul 9, 2004, 12:20 PM
Google calls it's HQ the "Google Plex" as well.

No information is available as to why Google spelled Googol wrong, which was initially made up by some physicist 10 year old.

Of course, Macintosh spelled McIntosh wrong, too (which the spellchecker is currently informing me that I was the one who spelled it wrong)

Laslo Panaflex
Jul 9, 2004, 12:30 PM
Google spelled Googol wrong, which was initially made up by some physicist 10 year old.

WOW, what a smart ten year old. :0

Chip NoVaMac
Jul 9, 2004, 01:36 PM
Trademarks are registered for specific purposes. It was only recently that Google (the search company) decided to move into e-mail, book selling and children's toys - three areas where Googles got there first.

So in theory I can start a company called Kleenex doing lets anti-virus software and be safe?

rvernout
Jul 11, 2004, 08:19 AM
So in theory I can start a company called Kleenex doing lets anti-virus software and be safe?

No, once a trade mark has become widely known its protection is broadened to all products/services. Of course earlier trade marks (registered and non-registered) keep their rights.